On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 03:41:23PM -0700, Alvaro Retana wrote: > On September 26, 2018 at 5:46:18 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ([email protected]) wrote: > > Benjamin: > > Hi! > > I don’t see your updated ballot in my archive…hmmm..?? > > But I wanted to reply to the additional point. You wrote: > > === > I'm not sure I followed correctly some discussion around the rtgdir > review, specifically the meaning of the indicated MSD value for SR-enabled > vs. non-SR-enabled networks. In particular, I still don't really understand > why it's okay to use the same codepoint (value 1 as assigned here) for > the max SID depth in SR-enabled networks and for the max label depth > in non-SR MPLS networks. Why couldn't they just be separate MSD Type > codepoints? > === > > The answer is relatively simple: SR doesn’t change the MPLS architecture, > it just looks at the label stack in a different way by calling the labels a > segment [rfc8402]. IOW, the SID depth is the same as the max label depth > because a segment is the same as a label (for the purposes of forwarding > and considering the max segment/label depth).
That helps, thanks. I was probably getting confused with some other system that interspersed the "new type of label" (whatever it was) and other existing labels. Maybe entropy labels; I think we read that recently... I may try to suggest some new text that would help clarify this relationship, but probably not until after the telechat, and there's no need to wait for it, regardless. -Benjamin _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
